Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 11:08:47 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Bill Funk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Dec 03 10:46:25 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>> >>Greg wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which
>was
>>> >>>>exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE
>>> >efficiency, such
>>> >>> as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>EXACTLY. Clinton policy = NO MODIFICATIONS!! Not even improvements to an
>>> >>old plant that would be better than doing nothing.
>>> >
>>> >Because the Clean Air Act only exempts _maintenance_ not _modifications_.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>> So making it BETTER brings on penalties, but keeping it dirty is OK?
>>> How is this supposed to clean up the air?
>>
>>The special llogic magic takes care of that. See cleaning the air obviously
>isn't
>>important to Lloyd, no matter how much he'll claim otherwise, because he
>favors
>>perverse inventives of treating parts replacments as "substrantial
>modifications"
>>Instead it's what he feels that manners--not the real world. .
>>
>No, of course, utility company profits are more important than children and
>grandparents dying of respiratory illness. Every good right-wing
>fundamentalist knows that.

Let's see you donate your salary to UNESCO, Lloyd.
Or don't you have the convictions that you seem to expect of others?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Fri, 05 Dec 03 10:55:20 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 04 Dec 03 10:19:03 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>But there are no tax benefits to "civil unions", no inheritance benefits, no
>>>insurance benefits, etc.
>>
>>You've never heard of common law marriage?
>>
>Most states don't recognize that anymore.

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

So doesn't this contradict "But there are no tax benefits to "civil
unions", no inheritance benefits, no insurance benefits, etc."?
Why, yes, it does.
If you want to say something, Lloyd, try to make it a little more
right. You will have a much easier time, and it will be much harder to
prove you wrong.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:27:57 -0500, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:

>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, John S <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >z wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote in message
>> >> news:<O0Lyb.274685$ao4.944751@attbi_s51>...
>> >> >> > In article <[email protected]>, z wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > They are going to move production of CO2 to China? All those
>> >> >> > > inefficient old coal-fired power plants are going to China?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What is better? An old inefficient regulated to be as clean as
>> feasiable
>> >> >> > coal power plant in the USA feeding a factory with electricity or a
>> >> >> > quick-and-dirty-old-tech-soviet-style coal plant in china feeding a
>> >> >> > factory? Which is better for the environment?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And why do we have old coal plants in the USA? Because any new plants
>> >> >> > are opposed on environmental grounds. And new and better means of
>> >> >> > generation are opposed on environmental grounds. So what we get
>> >> >> > is the status quo. The status quo remains because change is not
>> >> >> > possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, the old rightwing fantasy factory rides again. Do you recall the
>> >> >> Clean Air Act? Do you recall that the power companies piteously pled
>> >> >> for and were granted an exemption for their old coal and oil fuelled
>> >> >> plants, since the power companies promised that they were going to be
>> >> >> all mothballed soon anyway and it would be purely wasteful to upgrade
>> >> >> them for the short time they will be in operation? Well, it's thirty
>> >> >> years later now, and here in CT, half the electricity is still being
>> >> >> produced by those old 'soon to be mothballed' plants, known locally as
>> >> >> the Filthy Five. This is not because the utility companies are just
>> >> >> dying to build some expensive clean new plants and the
>> >> >> environmentalists just won't let them. It's purely because it's much
>> >> >> cheaper to run these monstrosities unmodified than it is to build new
>> >> >> plants, despite the environmentalists screaming to trade them for
>> >> >> clean new plants or else update them. The Reagan and Bush I
>> >> >> administrations refused to enforce the part of the Clean Air Act that
>> >> >> requires the companies to install upgraded pollution controls if they
>> >> >> were doing significant expansions to the plants, in contrast to
>> >> >> routine maintenance, allowing the Filthy Five to actually expand their
>> >> >> filthy emissions. The Clinton administration finally starts to enforce
>> >> >> this provision, and what happens? The Bush junta reverses the
>> >> >> enforcement decision. And in response to this boondoggle, the
>> >> >> utilities raise their rates 10%.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's not true at all. First of all, the Bush I administration SIGNED
>> the
>> >> Clean Air Act
>> >> >amendments in 1990 into law, which strenghthened, not weakened the Clean
>> Air
>> >> Act. Secondly, the
>> >> >act was and is being enforced. The act was designed to require NEW PLANTS
>> >> (new sources) to have
>> >> >much more stringent controls with updated technology. Older plants would
>> be
>> >> initially exempted
>> >> >because of common sense economics. However pollution from these older
>> palnts
>> >> would then be capped
>> >> >and traded, so plants pay for their negative externalities (pollution) and
>> >> production is shifted to
>> >> >the most efficient (by this I mean less polluting) plants because they are
>> >> cheaper to operate due
>> >> >to the cost of pollution credits. In this way all plants use the most
>> >> advanced pollution controls
>> >> >available to them. Eventually the older plants are shut down or upgraded
>> >> (when they WOULD be
>> >> >subject to New Source controls) because they are too expensive to operate
>> or
>> >> they get too old to
>> >> >operate anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >The problem is that the Clinton administration started treating routine
>> >> maintenance on plants as
>> >> >"new source" creation, which was contrary to the actual written law.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. They started treating major modifications as new sources, which was
>> >> exactly what the law allowed (and required).
>> >
>> >MAJOR modifications. Not minor improvements which would INCREASE efficiency,
>> such
>> >as a new version of wear items such as turbine blades.
>> >
>> >> If during 10 years of routine
>> >> maintenance you replace each part, you've got a new source, yet under your
>> and
>> >> Bush's plan, it'd never trigger the latest pollution controls because you
>> >> replaced it one piece at a time, as part of each year's maintenance.
>> >
>> >No. The law clearly states that merely replacing parts is NOT new source.
>> Try
>> >becoming familiar with what you talk about.
>> >
>>
>> Replacing may not be, but changing one part for a DIFFERENT one is, and should
>> be. Otherwise, you'd have the scenario I mentioned.
>
>In your alternate reality, not in the actual US statue. Routine maintenance and
>part upgrades are specifically permitted under the new source review. This was
>done for good reason, otherwise it would be bad policy that creates perverse
>incentives to remain most polluting status quo.
>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Treating it this way
>> >> >subjected the plants specifically exempted from the statue to the
>> >> requirements of new plants.
>> >>
>> >> But if the plants get modified instead of just "serviced and cleaned",
>> that's
>> >> precisely what the law intended. That's why the EPA sued a number of
>> utility
>> >> companies, why a number of them settled, and why the suits continued until
>> >> Bush decided to "reinterpet" the law just this year.;
>> >
>> >Actually all Bush did was interpret the law exactly as it was WRITTEN in the
>> >statue, and had been enforced pre Browner and friends.
>>
>> Not true. I refer you to the suits the EPA filed.
>
>You mean the Clinton EPA filed, the same EPA file that destroyed its records in
>its last day, despite specific US District Court orders not to. Yep, the Clinton
>EPA was sure proud of its record.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ?This
>> >> >had the perverse incentive of indicating to plant owners that routine
>> >> maintenance is a BAD IDEA to
>> >> >do, because the Government will come after you for doing it. Better to
>> defer
>> >> maintenance and not
>> >> >keep plants in the most effiicent manner they can be reasonably operated
>> in.
>> >> But the effect of
>> >> >this is that when routine maintenance and minor upgrades become to
>> expensive
>> >> because of overzealous
>> >> >regulation, the effect is that nothing is done and instead the most
>> polluting
>> >> plants are left in
>> >> >operation as is, with no improvements all. The WSJ has reported
>> extensively
>> >> on this, and
>> >>
>> >> The WSJ never met an environmental reg it liked, because it never met a
>> >> corporate profit it didn't want increased.
>> >
>> >What on earth are you babbling about? You can't make your argument with
>> actual
>> >facts, so you attack/smear the messenger.
>>
>> I suggest you cite some source other than one rabidly pro-business to have any
>> credibility.
>
>The only sources that appears to have credibility with you is the Sierra Club and
>Consumer Reports. Furthermore your slam against WSJ is false and you cannot
>substantiate it.
>
>>
>>
>> > Try actually reading the WSJ for once
>> >in your life and you would know that you are wrong as when you said that
>> Daimler
>> >Chrysler was the only foreign company listed on the New York Stock Exchange,
>> as if
>> >Sony of Japan (NYSE:SNE) or Deutsch Bank AG (NYSE: DB) and others didn't
>> even
>> >exist!
>> >
>>
>> You're confusing ADRs with actual shares of stock.
>
>Many non companies (inclding American Depostitary Receipt) are LISTED on the New
>York Stock Exchange and trade like any other stock, contrary to your phony claim
>that only DCX is listed on NYSE. Global Shares are no less listed on the NYSE
>than ADPs.
>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >specifically about how the Clinton EPA chief was upset that plants were
>> TOO
>> >> CLEAN because they
>> >> >needed something to rail against to publicity. This was all recorded in
>> >> memos.
>> >>
>> >> It was not.
>> >
>> > Wrong, the Wall Street Journal printed some of these memos not too long
>> ago. And
>> >those were the ones that did not get quietly destroyed by Browner on the last
>> full
>> >day of the Clinton adminstration. ABC News reported on April 30 2001 that
>> Clinton
>> >EPA Administrator Browner had ordered her records and hard drives destroyed,
>> >against US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth's order. I guess the
>> Clinton
>> >Administration is good in your eyes for Enron style shredding. The
>> philosophy of
>> >the Clinton EPA was to do grandstanding rulemaking, without required
>> legislation
>> >or even sound policies. Let me guess, now you're going to start saying how
>> ABC
>> >News is really just a shill. too. Ha!
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Bush plan restores the EPA's mandated New Source Review. But it's
>> easier
>> >> for people to make
>> >> >silly attacks on Bush, because they cannot comprehend the actual laws, the
>> >> reason why they were
>> >> >written, the actual effects that they have, the effect of enforcing
>> non-laws,
>> >> or what is going on
>> >> >in general.
>> >>
>> >> Next you'll be telling us how good Bush is for the environment! LOL!
>> >
>> >A lot better than his predecessor, who created perverse incentives for plants
>> NOT
>> >to get cleaner, and HALTED dead brush cleanup in forests so that they could
>> become
>> >tinderboxes for massive fires. Bush is giving us low sulfur diesel fuel,
>> the low
>> >arsenic water standard which Clinton denied drinkers in 1996, and Bush's EPA
>> is
>> >forcing General Electric to clean up PCBs for the entire Hudson River.
>> Thanks for
>> >all those fires, Mr. Clinton. Thanks for conveniently destroying the
>> government
>> >records on the way out too. Glad you were so proud of your record that you
>> needed
>> >to erase it.
>> >
>> >I'll repost that story that was posted before, because you conveniently
>> forgot to
>> >comment on it!
>> >
>> > "In one famous case, DTE Energy Corp., parent of Detroit Edison Co., tried
>> to
>> >replace older, less efficient propeller blades in several steam turbines at
>> its
>> >biggest coal-fired plant. The new blades were 15% more efficient than the
>> old,
>> >meaning they could generate 15% more power using the same amount of
>> energy--more
>> >power, less pollution. But the Clinton EPA threatened to invoke New Source
>> Review
>> >anyway, so the plan was scrapped.
>> >
>> > Not that Detroit Edison and others are avoiding heavy pollution-fighting
>> >expenses. At the very same plant, Detroit Edison is spending $650 million to
>> meet
>> >new nitrogen oxide standards--an expense that won't generate a single new
>> kilowatt
>> >of electricity.
>> >
>> > Bureaucrats, of course, interpret such a rational response to perverse rules
>> as a
>> >sign of corporate greed. So when the Clinton administration found that at
>> least
>> >80% of the nation's utilities were violating its New Source Review
>> guidelines, it
>> >didn't bother to ask whether something might be wrong with its policies. It
>> simply
>> >filed an avalanche of lawsuits demanding huge fines.
>> >
>> >Yet EPA data clearly show that emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur
>> dioxide, the
>> >two main industrial pollutants, have declined substantially despite a
>> tripling of
>> >coal usage. Future Clean Air targets will reduce emissions a further 50%."
>> -WSJ
>> >11/26/02
>
>I notice that you have nothing to say to that. By the way, your computer's clock
>is wrong too.


I am not sure who wrote this but whoever did does not know dick about
steam turbines or power plants! Yes I do. Been there done it!!

Mike Romain wrote:

> I define abuse as posting off topic bull **** to a newsgroup that has a
> Charter.
>
> No netcop here, I haven't reported anyone to their abuse department yet.
>
> If you read your terms of service with your ISP, you will find that
> constantly posting off topic crap to a newsgroup with a charter is
> breaking your TOS agreement.
>
> That is abuse.

By your own definition, your own posts are no less "abuse". Pot calling the kettle black.

x-no-archive: yes
Mike Romain wrote:

> Jenn Wasdyke wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > Mike Romain wrote:
> >
> > > Please stop abusing groups with your cross posts.
> >
> > Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
> I am not a psychic so I don't know which group all the cross posts are
> coming from.

And everybody else does?

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Ancient One wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > I'll leave Mike, but not because of you. I don't want to offend anyone,
but
> > I am getting tired of repeating myself as well. Merry Christmas.
> >
>
> Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.
>
> These posts just go insane when Lloyd gets into them, it gets beyond
> 'entertaining' when he sets off dozens of folks and insists the whole
> usenet needs to see how stupid he is.
>
> Mike

Agreed.

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, C. E. White wrote:
> >>
> >> 5> Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> 4> If two men or two women want to be joined as a family in a marriage,
> >> 4> how does it detract from your marriage?
> >>
> >> 3> It is not a marriage.
> >>
> >> 2> So, let's summarize. The question is "Why should marriage be restricted
> >> 2> to opposite-sex couples?" and the very best, most cogent response you
> >> 2> can come up with is "Because marriage is restricted to opposite-sex
> >> 2> couples."
> >>
> >> > Why are trees called tress, dogs called dogs, etc. If I call a cat a
> >> > dog, does that make it a dog?
> >>
> >> We're not considering cats, dogs or trees. We're considering two people
> >> who wish to affirm their relationship to each other, thereby taking on the
> >> social and financial responsibilities and attaining the social and
> >> financial privileges accorded by society to two people in such a
> >> relationship.
> >>
> >> You have yet to explain why the sex of the two partners is at all relevant
> >> other than to make circular parrot noises ("Rawk! Man and woman! Reehoo!
> >> Redefining! Rawk! Not a marriage").
> >>
> >> You seem very convinced of your rightness on this matter. Surely, then,
> >> you can articulate the basis for your belief in a persuasive and logical
> >> manner, rather than simply repeating a dogmatic statement...?
> >>
> >> > The laws related to the institution of marriage were set in place with
> >> > the understanding that a marriage was a union between a man and a woman.
> >>
> >> Fifty years ago, your type was saying "The laws related to the institution
> >> of marriage were set in place with the understanding that a marriage was a
> >> union between members of the same race."
> >>
> >> > Trying to extend those laws to cover same sex unions is not the right
> >> > way to fix a perceived injustice.
> >>
> >> While I'd be interested to learn what you think *is* the right way, I
> >> hardly think you have much basis to be making pronouncements on the
> >> matter. You're not on the receiving end of the injustice.
> >
> >Your argument is to redefine something that has been well defined. If
> >somebody says that a square can only have 4 sides, you could call them a
> >circular parrot for not including a pentagon as a square with that reasoning.
> >
> >If people want to change that definition, in the USA at least there is a
> >proper procedure to do such in each state. Until then the existing
> definition
> >stands.
> >
> >Not what the Massachusetts legislature did, as the State Senate never voted
> on
> >the constitutional amendment on marriage. They were required to vote on this
> >under the constitution, as the proper number of signatures were obtained.
>
> Considering the decision has only been out a few weeks, and the legislature is
> probably not in session now...

Nonsense! The consitutional convention was on June 19, 2002. Whether or not the
legislature is in session NOW has no bearing. The Senate had a constitutional
duty to vote on the amendment. Instead the constitutional convention was brought
to order and adjourned within mere seconds. Yay or nay vote on the amendment,
that is all that was needed. After this travesty, the President Senate's approval
rating plumeted to the basement, even in liberal Massachusetts. He should have
been able to easily win governor, instead he came in a very distant third in just
the primary.

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:

> All you need to do is look at the VA health system to see how the US
> government would run a nationwide health system.
> And the VA system is one in which the Government entered into a
> contract with the individuals involved; and the gov't simply doesn't
> live up to its end.
> A nationwide health system by the same people? How could it possibly
> be better than the VA system?

I believe it would be better than VA system only because of limited
voting potentional of those who use the VA system. A low voting /
lobbying power means they really get the shaft at budget time.
Significantly better? Probably not, just good enough that people
wouldn't elect 3rd party types to federal office. Just so they
stay with the two parties.

But I can say one thing for sure, it would cost people a whole lot of
money in new and increased taxes.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> > The issue is not discrimination.
> >>
> >> That's exactly what's at issue. When one group of people is
systematically
> >> denied specific civil rights others have, that's invidious
discrimination.
> >>
> >
> >There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets
can
> >be protected, people insured, etc.
>
> Right to inherit, right to have insurance coverage, right to make
decisions
> when partner is dying, income tax deductions, ...
>
These aren't civil rights. They are available outside of marriage.

>
> >The point of these benefits in marriage
> >is traditionally and originally to help the family in life and protect
> >dependents if the breadwinner dies. It was a way to protect families.
> >Since when is it a civil right to have double insurance coverage.
>
> So why shouldn't a gay couple have protection if the breadwinner dies? Or
are
> you advocating taking the protection away if the husband and wife in a
> straight marriage both work?
>

I don't think the absence of marriage prevents legal arrangements that
accomplish whatever protection is needed.

> >
> >
> >> > Though it's useful for those who support
> >> > gay marriage because of the strategy to make it analogous with civil
> >rights
> >> > for blacks.
> >>
> >> Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta
Scott
> >> King agree with the analogy.
> >>
> >
> >I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
authority.
> >Would he?
>
> No.
>

Didn't think so.

> >
> >
> >> > If we all decide that gay marriage is cool, that's what we'll do and
> >> > we'll live with it and it's consequences. If we discriminate against
> >> > gays when it comes to marriage it's because people believe that the
> >> > basic unit of our society ought to be the family and that it ought to
be
> >> > preserved and protected. Not everyone agrees with that. Fine. Vote
> >> > your way.
> >>
> >
> >It's a deception to equate marriage to civil rights.
>
> It's a deception to pretend some civil rights don't matter.
>
> >
> >> If the majority is allowed to vote upon whether or not to grant equal
> >> civil rights to minorities, minorities will never be accorded equal
> >> rights. It's been demonstrated again and again and again.
> >>
> >> DS
> >>
> >
> >

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > > How does a marriage between 2 gays differ in what it "produces" from
one
> > > between 2 senior citizens, for example?
>
> > Anectodal.
>
> Don't duck the question, answer it.
>
> > The principles behind marriage are what they are and variation *within*
> > those principles are insignificant. Changing the principles behind
> > marriage are significant and opens a door that will force us to
> > re-evaluate the meaning of marriage in ever changing contexts.
>
> That door was opened long ago, when mixed-race couples were allowed to
> marry.
>

Mixed race doesn't do a thing to change what marriage is.

> > Normalizing our institutions based on sexual preference is much
different,
> > at least for marriage. It isn't about making it more inclusive, it's
about
> > redefining it. It changes the nature of marriage.
>
>
> Exactly the same arguments were made -- unsuccessfully, eventually, for
> they were utterly without merit then as now -- against allowing mixed-race
> couples to marry.

Mixed race is a racial issue, not a marriage issue.

>
> DS
>

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > > Such authorities on the civil rights struggle for blacks as Coretta
Scott
> > > King agree with the analogy.
>
> > I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights
> > authority. Would he?
>
> Well, let's see. What are Coretta Scott King's qualifications as an
> authority on the civil rights struggle for blacks? Her credentials, her
> track record and experience and that of her late husband.
>
> What are Clarence Thomas' qualifications? The color of his skin...?
>
> DS
>

I don't know other than his qualifications as a supreme court justice.
Certainly not because his wife. Either way, it doesn't mean CSKing is right
about same-sex marriage because she marched (did she?) or her late husband
was who he was.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:33:26 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Having a little trouble understanding the argument Lloyd? Let me
clarify.
> >The gay activist agenda is to redefine and rebuild our whole social
> >structure to abstract out distinction between sexual preference.
>
> You keep mentioning this point. Why is this a problem?
>

For some things it matters. Marriage is one of them. Marriage has a
distinct value to society that would be diminished without it's focus on the
traditional family. Where would we go in the long run if we lost that?
Hard to say, but I believe it would be harmful. It's just my view though.


> >In doing
> >so, it has to redefine marriage from what it's been to what they want it
to
> >be. The method used is to call the "benefits" of marriage "civil
rights".
> >The error is that the benefits of marriage aren't there because society
> >thinks marrieds are more deserving or more equal or more anything to the
> >exclusion of unmarrieds. They are there to protect and nurture families,
> >especially those with a single wage earner and dependents. Marriage
> >wouldn't be something that the government would have an interest in
> >protecting otherwise. That's the point.
>
> So gay families with either adopted kids or kids from prior
> relationships don't count?

I'm not for gay adoption and kids from prior marriages don't mean anything
legally in a new marriage of any stripe. Step parents don't have any legal
obligations or rights to step children.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:56:21 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Now the "subsidies" come in the form of "loans". No, this battle is
still
> >being waged.
>
> Didn't Chrysler do the same thing?

They did!

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:18:29 GMT, "David J. Allen"
> <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Sommerville" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> So view gay marriage as a marriage with one sterile member. How can
> >> one "detract" from marriage these days? With a 50% divorce rate it
> >> seems that hetero couples have done a pretty bang up job detracting
> >> from it on their own. Perhaps gay couples could show us how to live
> >> together happily for an extended period.
> >>
> >By giving it's benefits civil rights status.
>
> Again, what's wrong with this?
>

Marriage isn't about civil rights. If it were, you couldn't discriminate
amongst those who could lay claim to it on civil rights grounds.

Marriage is what it is for the benefit is provides to society not for any
civil right it satisfies.



> >> >Gay marriage, from it's onset and by definition, won't
> >> >produce children and shifts the point of marriage from children and
family
> >> >to gaining marriage benefits (tax, inheritence, insurance, etc.),
which
> >> >doesn't require marriage.
> >>
> >> It's the nature of a capitalist society that you're so proud of.
> >
> >No, the search for "rights" to benefits is strictly a left wing thing.
The
> >further left you go the more anti-capitalist.
>
> And the right wants to limit who gets these benefits, right?
>

No. The right believes in natural rights that are God given. The left
loves to pile on with new rights all the time. We start out with rights of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the bill of rights and the
libs want to drive it as far as they can with rights to benefits, jobs,
shelter, health care, etc.. All of which would obligate the government to
provide them. The right believes that, generally, individuals should be
responsible for their own welfare and do a better job of it that the
government.


> >> >To me, it seems part of a gay agenda to normalize homosexuality in our
> >> >society.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with normalizing homosexuality? Is it better that we
> >> beat them when we find them? Have a good old round of gay bashing?
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by "normalize". By redefining our social
> >institutions to abstract out any notion of sexual preference? That kind
of
> >normalization is not good.
>
> Why is this not good? Hell, 50 yrs ago the idea of a woman working
> outside the home was a bad thing. The idea of a woman executive was
> unthinkable, yet here we are today.
>

Because it changes the nature of marriage. It changes it into a union whose
purpose is to acquire benefits, most of which are available outside
marriage, and are specific to protecting the dependents of a provider.

BTW, we don't have a completely gender normalized society and it's debatable
that it would be beneficial. One could *never* differentiate based on
gender. Is that necessarily good?

> >Normalizing the application of true civil rights
> >and protection under the law is good.
>
> What do you consider to be true civil rights?

I'm sure the list is long, but it includes speech, assemble, congregate,
vote, property, worship, access to courts, due process, etc., etc.

The people don't have a absolute rights to everything. The government can
regulate many things based on legislation. One of those is who can and
can't marry to the extent that it can stop certain marriages based on a
compelling state interest (polygamy, same-sex, siblings, etc.). There's our
argument. Making marriage a civil right, turns off that filter and we can
no longer (or would have a much harder time) stop any type of marriage from
occuring. Intellectually, opening the door to same-sex but closing it to
other possibilities becomes discriminatory in the same fashion. If it's a
reflection of public values, then it will be what the people will tolerate.
If it's a matter of civil rights, then it doesn't matter what the people
will tolerate and the courts will protect whatever individuals choose.

> --
> Brandon Sommerville
> remove ".gov" to e-mail
>
> Definition of "Lottery":
> Millions of stupid people contributing
> to make one stupid person look smart.

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >...You elevate above the authority of the U.S. government in our own
> >> >country the authority of an organization (the U.N.) that signed
> >> >under-the-table agreements with international gay rights organizations
> >> >to endorse and support NAMBLA (an organization that promotes and
> >> >aggressively fights to legalize pedophilia the world over), only to be
> >> >stopped by the U.S. Congress' officially adopting a resolution to stop
> >> >paying its dues until its endorsement and support of such organizations
> >> >ceased.
> >>
> >> Flat-out lie.
> >
> >Oh yeah? Read it and weap:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lesbian_and_Gay_Association
> >Here's another good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA
> >
> >A matter of public record - part of the Congressional record, no doubt.
> >You wanna dispute that?
> >
> >I suppose you'll say that the Wikipedia is run by a right wing
> >organization.
>
> If you cited it, must be. Why not cite, oh, a NEWS organization? Or the UN
> itself?

It's a matter of public record. Try U.S. Congressional record. Oops -
since I cited that, it must be a right wing organization.

It's a fact that it happened. You can deny it all you want. Just
because you probably won't find acknowledgement of it from liberal
organizations doesn't mean it didn't happen. However I suspect you
could find some mention of it even there - kind of hard to ignore the
elephant in the room so to speak.

Oh - what the heck. Here are some sentences from the article iteself:
"In October of 1993, pressure from American right-wing groups and
politicians began to be exerted on ILGA to kick out its pedophile
organization members. The US Mission to the UN asked ILGA to
'disassociate itself from NAMBLA and other affiliate organizations'
whose 'objectives are not consonant with the UN's human rights
activities'.

"In November of 1993, the executive committee declared that ILGA
'condems pedophilia', contrary to some past resolutions on the matter,
and asked NAMBLA, Martijn, and Project Truth to resign voluntarily from
ILGA. None of the groups agreed to do so. On the 15th of November,
NAMBLA issued a press release reaffirming its membership in ILGA.

"On June 23, 1994, at the Annual Conference, NAMBLA, Martijn and Project
Truth were expelled from ILGA, on the motion of the executive committee,
and it was decided that 'groups or associations whose predominant aim is
to support or promote pedophilia are incompatible with the future
development of ILGA'.

"On the eve of the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, the event
that sparked the contemporary gay and lesbian movement, the NAMBLA
Bulletin was released in a brown paper format to rally support for
NAMBLA and so-called 'boy love' organizations within the gay community.
Due to the pressures facing NAMBLA, its members organized a group called
the Spirit of Stonewall (SOS), which gathered the endorsement of some
figures and organizations in the gay movement. Despite threats of
arrest, 50 NAMBLA members and 200 supporters, including Harry Hay,
marched under the banner of SOS."

So you're going to refute the above information from that article? I
suspect, with your connections in certain "communities", you would have
not trouble confirming the facts as stated above. Just handwaiving them
away due to whatever intellectually dishonest diversion you want to
throw out won't make them not a matter of record. I think the case is
made rather completely.



> >Notice how many times on the article it says that right
> >wing groups and politicians opposed the goings on of the gay community
> >in the situation - not once does it mention liberals as being
> >particularly outspoken about the UN's endorsement of such groups (and
> >the gay rights orgs. only acted when they saw that the publicity was
> >damaging their other "more palatable" causes).
>
> Why would liberals be outspoken about the UN endorsing gay rights groups [in context: who, in the situation described, were clearly pushing a pro-pedophilia agenda]?

(my comment in brackets above to re-introduce honesty into the
discussion)
Glad you agree that it would be strange for liberals to speak out
against systematized support of pedophilia. Notice my comment was
clearly in the context of the support of gay rights organizations who
worked a deal with the U.N. to support and endorse pedophilia around the
world. But that is a good observation that organizations with a liberal
agenda would not speak out against pedophilia (until publicity concerns
dictated that they to do so lest their more attainable agenda items be
jeopardized).

Give it up, Lloyd. It's clear to anyone who is honest what happened.
You can deny it all you want. It happened. Get over it. You're only
drawing attention to it and making your buddies look bad. Best to leave
it alone, but I really don't care beacuse the more people become aware
of that kind of crap, the more exposed you and your kind are.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And the US refusing to buy any military hardware from Airbus isn't a form
> of
> >> subsidy to Boeing?
> >>
> >
> >Nope. Lockheed, Northrop-Grumman, and even Gulfstream and Cessna are
> >free to submit bids also. Its restricting military contracting to US
> >companies, and I have no problem with that.
> >
> It's subsidizing US companies by giving only them government contracts.


Ah - you must be referring to Nancy Pelosi's (sp?) husband.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "The Ancient One" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Have you ever been to Canada?
> >
> >Yes I have. I also have friends in Canada, England, Scotland, Japan and
> >Germany, and I have discussed their "free" healthcare with them many times.
> >
> Gee, anecdotal evidence is so, well, silly.

Only Lloyd is allowed to state what he has personally been told by
someone with firsthand experience in a given matter and it not be
considered "anecdotal". When Lloyd does so, in his "mind" it "proves"
his point because "he knows somone who has experienced it firsthand!".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jenn Wasdyke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> > How about a man and his dog - why shouldn't they be allowed to get
> >> > married?
> >>
> >> Because the dog is not a human and cannot consent, for two very good
> >> reasons.
> >
> >Ah, so the ability to consent is the limiting factor. I ask again, why
> >not allow three people to consent? Why not allow cousins or siblings to
> >marry so they can get the "legal benefits" of marriage?
> >
> >
> There was a study last year that found no increased risk of genetic problems
> when cousins marry.


Must've come out of Emory. They used the movie "Deliverance" as the
basis for their study. Can you squeal like a pig, Lloyd?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> >There's no civil rights that gays lose out on without marriage. Assets can
> >be protected, people insured, etc.
>
> Right to inherit

Uh - called a will (already available).

> ...right to make decisions
> when partner is dying

Uh - called "medical power of attorney" (already available)

> >I don't suppose Clarence Thomas would qualify as a civil rights authority.
> >Would he?
>
> No.

Because he walked off the liberal plantation, so he deserves lynching
and castration, right. Lloyd?. He's not endorsed by the NAA*L*CP.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "David J. Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:

> >People and states just do what they do. They don't need a ruling or
> >permission from the federal government. If someone disagrees they can sue
> >in federal court. That's what I mean.
>
> And that's how, for example, the sodomy laws just recently got overturned.
> That's how the MA supreme court overturned their state's marriage law.

And that's how they'll attempt to go to the next logical steps, which
they always claim they have no intention of doing, and then when the
previous step is accomplished, they peel the next layer off the onion.

And that's why the liberals are going to lose next year's elections big
time. Called "backlash".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----